Sayonara

No, I meant if you transferred a software package from me (let's say Maya for the sake of argument), you'd not be breaking any laws. But if you used it without owning a license you clearly would be. File transfer software is not illegal, nor is hosting files. What is illegal is: i) Making copyright-applicable material available for distribution without permission, and ii) Aiding and abetting such distribution. It's (ii) that has allowed the RIAA and the MPAA to threaten torrent sites, which is why eXeem was designed to avoid the need for centralised trackers.

...if the answer to my last question is also 'no'.

Why should there not be?

Yup. (Although your use of that software without the proper license would be a separate crime, but that's irrelevant).

That's my point. Hello? Apply reductionist principles - this is the computer SCIENCE forum.

A PhD is a post-graduate course, yes. It's a research degree (sometimes supervised), which requires you to eventually produce a thesis.

Unless you consider that such a region can have its speed measured by proxy, as I suggested earlier. But that's really a matter of opinion.

What? Can we please stick to tracking the evidence, instead of spamming him with disparate questions and fixes to problems that he might not even have? If it's not the memory itself, the next logical place to look would be memory access. What was the last system change you made before you started getting blue screens?

Actually, downloading copyright-applicable material falls through a loophole in the wording of copyright law. Providing it for download is a clear breach of that law. If you are taking a serial for a trial package, whether or not the software company see that as theft will depend on the trial (for instance, if it's a closed public beta and you weren't invited, they'll just ignore you). However if you are trying to acquire a key that will activate trial software as full version software (e.g. Macromedia products), it's fairly obvious you are stealing access to a licensed product.

D.R. Congo and Zimbabwe would be good candidates too.

Indeed, not to mention the fact that it not only has no scientific basis, but also has no basis in philosophy, formal logic, or any hint that it's been derived from first principles of any kind. It's "just stuff he said", which as we know has zero inherent merit in a scientific environment. Why are you specially choosing ultraviolet light as an indicator for darkness?

Better, or faster? You sound fairly certain of that.

That's the one. Forgot how crap it was.

No, it isn't. We say it is "dark" when there is not enough visible light - I.E. THE LIGHT WE CAN SEE - for us to perceive our surroundings, or no light at all THAT WE CAN SEE. The mechanisms of the human eye and visual cortex are known. Dark is not a "thing", nor an interpretation of a thing. It is the absence of a thing. It is the result of a failure to perceive something which is not there. It's philosophically equivalent to a hole or a deficit. Now stop trying to be deliberately contrary, because it's getting really effing tired. To answer the original question: if you consider darkness to be a region that is relatively free of visible light, then by necessity if that region can travel at all it can only do so at the speed with which its boundaries travel. Since its boundaries are defined by external regions that are relatively saturated with visible light, then that darkness could be said to be moving at the speed of light.

It doesn't come from nowhere - it's called predestination. All you've done is shift the original event on your original time travel. The information could have literally come from anywhere between Noah deciding to build an ark, and you leaving the present to go to the past. It's only after that journey starts that the point of origin is obfuscated to an outside observer.

Which is why I said "much at all", instead of "nothing at all". A small concession to the fact that we are different, and that difference will change our biology. When I talk about evolution, I refer to the formally recognised ecological time-dependent process. Not any old thing that can be said to be evolving (i.e. going through a process of change, for whatever reason, with any or no degree of coherence.) My problem however is actually with the pop-sci speculation, rather than the specific use of the word.

You're talking about selection, not evolution. The two are not synonymous. It doesn't make sense to say that humans are "degrading". By what standard are you judging that to be so? Likewise, it really doesn't matter what proportion of the population fails to be adapted beyond the average distributions - as long as some are, selection can occur towards any given phenotype.

Didn't we have a "post your picture" thread a while back? I was looking for it earlier and couldn't for the life of me remember the title, or the o/p.

If he will then we should have the results already.

Depends what format you're burning in. If it's MP3, you can give the files any valid file attributes you like. If it's CDA, then I have no idea.

If we have to tread over this tired ground again I really am going to scream.

None of those 3 steps have much at all to do with evolution.

Don't suppose he tested that while he was at it?

Check your memory sticks are in properly. If they are, and you have more than one, try booting with only one of them inserted at a time. If one of them is faulty, that should allow you to identify which one it is.